Tagged: Pit bull

The Chinese New Year is approaching in February. Will 2018 be lucky for dogs?

The end of 2017 saw hope on the horizon for animal welfare, particularly with regards to dogs. The Government promised new legislation which would increase sentences for animal cruelty, and, thanks to the success of the ‘Lucy’s Law’ campaign, DEFRA announced plans for tighter regulations surrounding the breeding and sale of puppies. The puppy farming campaign gathered momentum throughout the year before being officially launched in Parliament during December. Although there’s still a long way to go before we can expect to see the end of puppy farming in the UK, the success of Lucy’s Law to date is encouraging for all animal campaigners. And there’s more. In early December, ‘Finn’s Law’ was introduced to Parliament. Officially known as the Service Animals (Offences) Bill, which is set to have its second reading in February, Finn’s Law would make it an offence to attack service animals, including police and assistance dogs. The proposed legislation was inspired by the bravery of police dog Finn, a German Shepherd who suffered life-threatening injuries while on duty with his handler PC Dave Wardell. So far, the bill has received unanimous backing from MPs.

2017 was certainly very busy for Born Innocentwho celebrated their first birthday back in May and worked tirelessly to spread their end-BSL message throughout the year. In addition to attending conferences, meetings with the Law Commission, events in Parliament and various seminars, the team sent representatives to plenty of local dog shows and breed rescue events up and down the country. They even had a stand at Discover Dogs, where they were able to provide advice to owners of bully breeds and educate the public about BSL (with some individuals breaking down in tears when they learnt about the horrors of our current legislation). Another highlight of the year was having their research published in The Times, with mentions of the campaign group also appearing in K9 Magazine and Dogs Today. Professor John Cooper QC, patron of Born Innocent, received an ‘Unsung Hero’ award at DogFest for his dedication to improving animal welfare and for his work at Born Innocent – a proud moment for the whole team.

So what’s next?

2018 could be the most crucial year yet for ensuring that BSL is consigned to history. Now more than ever we need everyone’s voices to be heard. With the Government finally taking real action for dogs, it seems that there has never been a better time to lobby against breed specific legislation. Born Innocent have no intention of slowing down in 2018 – empowered by their successes of last year, they are ready to continue their work on the front line to end breed specific legislation for good. Less than a week into the new year, the team already announced exciting news of a brand new partnership with the London Fire Brigade, teaming up to assist with their education programme for 13-14 year olds. Born Innocent will be focusing their workshops on dogs, taking a proactive approach to dog bite prevention and raising awareness of dog welfare.

Will this be the year that common sense finally prevails?

With the help of dog lovers, campaigners and celebrity supporters, 2018 truly could turn out to be the ‘Year of the Dog’.

To stay updated with Born Innocent’s latest news, follow them on Facebook and Twitter @borninnocentdda. Remember to share posts and help spread the word about the failings of breed specific legislation, using the hashtag #endBSL.

For details on how to contact your local MP and DEFRA regarding the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, please see Born Innocent’s guide here.

Four year old rescue dog Cooper was seized as a ‘Pit Bull type’ last year and held in police kennels for almost two months. Here his owner Rachael talks to Bark! about the impact that the ordeal had on the family and explains how Cooper is now adjusting to life as an exempted dog.

Cooper on the day he was rescued.

Tell us about how you met Cooper.

“Cooper came into our lives quite unexpectedly! My husband, Mike, had recently retired from the armed forces following 23 years of service, which meant that he would be at home more often before starting his new career. One day, Mike called in at our veterinary practice to drop off a form for our elderly Westie while I was at work. When he arrived, everybody in the surgery was talking about a puppy that a man had just brought in off the street. The vet nurse asked Mike if he was interested in adopting a puppy and introduced him to a very skinny and poorly Cooper. Mike took a photograph of him and immediately dashed over to my work to show me. Did I want him? Of course I did! Later on we headed to the surgery together and Cooper was placed in my arms. It really was love at first sight. Sadly, the vet nurse broke the news that he had tested positive for parvovirus. With no owner to claim him, Cooper’s future looked bleak. As we talked about his chances of pulling through, I stared at the puppy on the table who could barely hold his head up and knew that we couldn’t just leave him in this state. We agreed to fund two days treatment and then we would re-evaluate the situation.

Although we had no idea if the puppy was going to make it, we dared to buy a collar and name tag, and told our two children, who were 16 and 22, that we may be having a new addition to the family. We anxiously phoned the surgery at regular intervals to check on his progress. After a few days, the vets decided that he was fit enough to come home with us, as long as we obeyed strict hygiene practices. At first he was very reluctant to eat or drink, but with the help of our two (somewhat unimpressed) terriers, he slowly learnt how to be a dog and began to settle into family life.”

What was life like with Cooper before he was seized?

“Cooper was a complete love bug. He loved nothing more than to cuddle up with us – we think he firmly believed that he was a small terrier as he would constantly attempt to sit on my knee. He adored everyone. He enjoyed puppy class, and even tried agility, which he took to like he did everything else in life – at 110 miles an hour! He seemed to want to know where we were at all times and was nowhere near as independent as our two terriers – he just wanted to be near us, which made him happy. As time went by he grew in confidence, and he loved the beach and swimming in the sea. He was generally just a fun puppy to be around and possibly the most loving dog we had ever owned. He had to have an operation to remove his tail to prevent infection, due to being diagnosed with ‘happy tail syndrome’, which basically meant that he was so happy that his continuous tail wagging frequently resulted in him making his tail bleed (leaving our house looking like a crime scene!). He quickly recovered from the operation and carried on with his usual lust for life.”

Cuddly Cooper.

When did you first realise that there may be an issue with Cooper’s breed?

“On a number of occasions, people stopped us and asked about Cooper, and sometimes people would stare. In all fairness, he was stunning with his amber eyes and red nose, so we naively thought nothing of it. When he was about 12 months old, our daughter was offered a substantial amount of money for Cooper when she was out walking him. We brushed off any concerns and weren’t aware that there may be an ‘issue’ with Cooper until he was seized.”

Can you talk us through what happened when Cooper was taken from you?

“We had just returned home from a week at the coast where Cooper had done his usual thing of running at breakneck speed over the sands. Upon our return, his stomach had been a little unsettled (he occasionally suffered from an upset stomach due to his poor start in life), so Mike left the dog door open for him to let himself out. Unfortunately, Cooper escaped from the garden and was picked up by a member of the public and handed into the dog warden, who contacted the police. Cooper was visually identified as ‘type’ and taken to police kennels. I received a phone call from Mike who explained what had happened. We were both utterly devastated. We phoned the police and asked if we could take his bed, toys, and food, as we were concerned that a change of diet would be detrimental to his health. We were told that we couldn’t see him and they couldn’t tell us where he was. They said that if the food they gave him upset his stomach they would try something else.

I cried myself to sleep. I felt completely useless and had no idea what to do or who to speak to – we didn’t know anyone who had been through this before. Mike phoned a solicitor who gave us advice over the phone and stated that in their belief we weren’t a ‘high risk’ seizure and were unlikely to need legal representation, but they would willingly represent us should we need them.”

For how long was Cooper kept in kennels? Did you have any updates regarding his welfare?

“Cooper was seized on the 31st May and returned home to us on the 12th July. We phoned the police dog unit daily for updates, and initially our hopes were raised that Cooper would be considered to come home via the Interim Exemption Scheme [‘doggy bail’]. However, we were then told that they didn’t have the scheme in our area and probably never would.

I can’t begin to explain how we felt while Cooper was being held. I was beside myself with worry and needed to know that he was okay. He is a family pet who had never spent a night away from us, and I feared that he wouldn’t cope in kennels and would think that we didn’t want him anymore. The Dog Legislation Officer (DLO) assessed Cooper and came out to see us on the 13th June. He said that Cooper was fine and that he thought he was a good dog. After advising us to raise a few fence panels in the garden and taking photographs of his living area, the DLO was satisfied and said that he could see no reason why Cooper shouldn’t come home. Although this was a great relief, the toll on the family was immense, and we continued to have sleepless nights as the worry hung over us that we may be given a destruction order. My greatest fear was that Cooper would die alone. I couldn’t get away from the fact that we had saved his life once, only for him to potentially be killed for looking a certain way. The whole thing made no sense.”

Thank goodness that Cooper was able to return home. Can you give us a brief overview of the exemption process?

“When we finally got the court date, it couldn’t come quickly enough. The morning of 8th July, after a tense and sleepless night, we headed out for our first ever trip to court. The DLO met us outside and we chatted about Cooper and dogs in general. The moment in court came and went in the blink of an eye, and we were given a contingent destruction order, which meant that Cooper was going to be registered as an exempted Pit Bull type. We sent all the paperwork to DEFRA that day along with our fee, and headed out to celebrate with the family. As Cooper had already been castrated and microchipped prior to seizure, and we’d made the arrangements to have the third party liability insurance in place, we didn’t have to wait long for him to be released. We asked what size muzzle Cooper was being trained with and purchased a few of them. Once we knew for certain that Cooper was coming home, we put a post on social media to explain what had happened, and we received a lot of positive messages of support from our friends.

Cooper came home four days later.”

Cooper wearing his muzzle in line with the exemption conditions.

Has Cooper’s behaviour changed since he was seized?

“When he first came home, Cooper was very quiet. He was hoarse when he barked and he was smelly and scurfy. His paws were pink and inflamed. We took him to the vets and he was given some medication as his glands were up in his neck, possibly from continuous crying and barking when he was caged. He was also given some foot scrub to reduce the inflammation which seemed to be an allergic response, and we were advised that once he was back on his own diet it should resolve quickly.

Initially, Cooper only left his bed for food and walks. He looked sad and shut down. He accepted our contact but wasn’t as loving and cuddly as he was prior to being seized. My mum described him as “dead behind the eyes”. We wondered if he would ever return to being the Cooper we all knew and loved, or whether the experience had changed him for life. Gradually, he adjusted to being at home and became cuddly Cooper again, but he was a shadow of his former self in other ways. He developed separation anxiety and would bark, cry, howl and eat objects, including our leather sofa and anything else in his way, if we left him alone even for the shortest periods of time. His stomach issues increased significantly and he was diagnosed with colitis, which we were told is triggered by stress. On a few occasions he had some flare ups where he would pass pure blood. Our previously relaxed and balanced dog was now very anxious. He became reactive on the lead towards other dogs and also became nervous of strange noises.”

What adjustments have you had to make to help Cooper settle back into family life?

“We sent Cooper for training in a residential facility to help with his reactivity and anxiety. He returned to us obedient and slightly better, but was still reactive towards other dogs. Over time his anxiety increased significantly. I joined the ‘Reactive Dogs UK’ group and started following the care protocol which helped me to understand Cooper’s behaviour and which stimuli caused stress for him. I walked him in quieter places in order to start building up his confidence and reduce the triggers that he encountered. We then found a behaviourist who had a sensory environment and made an appointment to visit. Cooper now goes there on a regular basis. Upon their advice, we put Cooper back on a harness and use a lead which allows him to make choices for himself. This has increased his confidence as he isn’t forced to encounter anything he doesn’t want to, and we have found that his reactivity has decreased and he appears to be enjoying his walks again.

To help him further, we have changed Cooper’s food; we now feed him on a raw diet and he has no processed food or treats. This seems to have resolved his stomach issues completely and he has had no colitis flare ups at all since swapping his diet. We have also had a zoopharmacognosy session which allowed Cooper to self-select herbs and natural products that he may be deficient of. I was dubious at first but was amazed to find that everything he liked was used for the treatment of digestive conditions or for stress related issues. After the first session he slept for six hours straight! When we leave him on his own now, we leave some of the scents around the house which help him to relax. This may all seem a little crazy but we have chosen to rescue Cooper twice, and we owe it to him to do all we can to get him back on track.”

Have you noticed any negative reactions towards Cooper since he was ‘typed’ as a Pit Bull?

“Since one of the conditions of exemption is that Cooper must wear a muzzle at all times in a public place, there have been occasions where people have assumed that he is dangerous due to his muzzle. We have had people make comments and even pick their dogs up as we walk by, all because of how Cooper looks with his new unwanted accessory. Of course, these sort of reactions meant that he was getting less interaction with other dogs which initially increased his reactivity. We became reluctant to walk him and really took all the negative comments to heart.”

Cooper’s message to the haters!

What advice would you give to anyone who finds themselves in a similar situation with their own dog?

“For anyone else facing the same situation, my advice would be to remain calm and focused. Prepare a court pack of your own, including information from your vet, records of any training classes you have attended and witness testimonies from your dog trainer regarding both yourself and your dog’s character. Be aware that there are people with lots of opinions on social media, and everyone’s experiences are different, so don’t read them thinking that your’s will necessarily follow the same pattern as this isn’t always the case. Try to get some solid advice from those who really know or have experienced the process.

Be prepared for the fact that people may not view you or your dog in the same way, and hold your head high. Don’t be surprised if your dog has changed – after talking to others it is more common than you think – just make sure that you support your dog to help them settle again. Most importantly, follow the court order to keep your dog safe. It brought it home to me when someone pointed out that having a contingent destruction order means that Cooper will not be destroyed only if we abide by the court conditions at all times.

The most important thing that I have realised is that Cooper is still Cooper – just because he meets the measurements and was deemed to be type, he’s still the same loving dog he was prior to being seized. He just needed a little time to adapt.”

Bark! would like to offer a big thank you to Rachael and her family for telling Cooper’s story.

To help put an end to breed specific legislation in the UK, please support Born Innocent, a registered non-profit campaign group focused on enacting changes to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Further details can be found on the website and Facebook page.

To provide support for owners who have had their dog seized, please take a look at the fundraising page for Born Innocent’s sister group, ‘Putting Breed Specific Legislation to Sleep UK’.100% of the money raised through auctions, raffles and ‘End BSL’ merchandise goes directly to help the dogs. Thank you.

A year has now passed since the death of Francis, a stray Pit Bull type dog who had found his way to Battersea Dogs and Cats Home. Francis, by all accounts, was a friendly dog. Indeed, the Home itself released photographs of him, including one with a member of staff affectionately kissing his head, and also published an online video featuring Francis in order to bring the plight of all Pit Bull type dogs to the attention of the public. And it worked. According to newspaper reports, over 30,000 people signed a petition in the hope of giving Francis a reprieve. But there was no hope. On the 28th July 2016, Battersea announced that, in line with the current law, he had been euthanised. Francis, of course, was not the first victim, and definitely wasn’t the last. Within their statement, Battersea confirmed that 91 dogs within their care that were deemed by police to be of illegal ‘types’ were put down in 2015 alone. And those are the figures for just one rescue organisation.

Francis. (Image copyright Lauren Hurley/PA Wire)

August 12th will mark 26 years since the Dangerous Dogs Act was enforced in Britain, another sad milestone in the history of breed specific legislation. Despite tremendous evidence to show that targeting individual breeds of dog in this manner does not improve public safety, along with pressure from animal charities, welfare organisations, campaign groups and simply concerned dog lovers (including over 70k signatures on the RSPCA’s #EndBSL petition), DEFRA have recently refused to engage in a review of the law, as put forward by the Law Commission.

Quite frankly, the notion that a country which prides itself on its equality and intolerance of discrimination can continue to uphold such a disgusting piece of legislation is nothing short of absurd. Throw our supposed ‘nation of dog lovers’ tagline into the mix and it becomes almost laughable. Dogs throughout the UK are being put to sleep simply because they look a certain way. There is nothing to justify this. Recent research has confirmed that there were no differences found between legislated and non-legislated breeds in terms of the medical treatment required following a bite from an individual dog. Yes, the ‘locking jaw’ phenomenon is a myth – Pit Bull types are undoubtedly powerful, but so are hundreds of other legal dogs found in homes up and down the country. This particular study, published in Ireland, also found that the very nature of breed specific legislation is problematic in terms of the influence it has over our perceptions of dogs since it generates a ‘false sense of security’; labelling certain types of dog as inherently dangerous means that they are likely to be perceived very differently to legal breeds, when in reality any dog has the capability to cause harm. Indeed, research has demonstrated that hospital admissions for dog attacks are actually on the increase – not exactly the desired result of the Dangerous Dogs Act when it was enacted in 1991.

For those who still believe that breed specific legislation is necessary, due to the ‘hooded youth with Pit Bull’ image, consider the fact that these types of dog actually became considerably more attractive as a status symbol once they became illegal, and there are now more so-called Pit Bulls on the streets than ever before. It is also worth noting that for the most part it is innocent family pets who fall victim to the law in its current format, with owners left distraught as their dog is taken away. Born Innocent confirms that women in their thirties and forties are those who frequently ask for help following the seizure of their pet. It is not just those who fit the ‘criminal’ stereotype who find themselves on the wrong side of the law, simply because they own a dog whose body measurements classify them as a ‘Pit Bull’.

Francis was just one of thousands. This is happening on a daily basis. There are currently hundreds of seized dogs confined to a kennel, awaiting their fate. And yet, for the most part, nothing is done about it. Except for the dedicated campaigners who are on the frontline, battling to save the lives of these dogs, everyone else remains relatively quiet. Where are the people who generated a Twitter frenzy when Theresa May announced her plan to bring fox hunting back? Where are those who to this day still reference the death of a gorilla (#RIPHarambe)? Why do we always hear about the welfare implications of the badger cull on the news but not about the well-being of the family pets who have been dragged away from their homes? Although there have been some high-profile cases, such as Francis, Stella, and Lennox to name a few, it seems that any public hype surrounding the appalling nature of the Dangerous Dogs Act quietly fades away along with the last breath of the dog in question. Is this because, as a nation, we are all secretly turning a blind eye to the horrors of breed specific legislation? To the heartbroken owners who realise too late that they’ve just signed their pet’s death warrant? To the rescue centres forced to euthanise healthy dogs which would make perfect family pets? To the kennel assistants who cry at night over dogs they are forbidden to touch? To the dogs themselves, locked in a cramped kennel, lonely and distressed? Or the condemned dog lying on the vet’s table, giving one last pathetic attempt at a tail wag, oblivious to the fact that she’s just been given a lethal injection?

It’s time we stopped looking the other way.

Write to your MP. Write to DEFRA. If you can, attend an anti-BSL rally. Support the owners of seized dogs by making a donation. But most importantly, spread the word about our flawed Dangerous Dogs Act. Let’s get this barbaric piece of legislation consigned to history.

Today marks 25 years since the Dangerous Dogs Act came into force, introducing breed specific legislation to the UK for the first time. Since August 1991, thousands of dogs have been seized and often euthanised under ‘Section 1’ of the Act which prohibits four types of dog, originally chosen due to their size and fighting heritage. The most common of the types, the Pit Bull Terrier, is a much maligned and misunderstood breed. As a result of Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act, dogs which share the characteristics of a ‘Pit Bull’ can not be rehomed, even if they have passed temperament tests conducted by qualified dog behaviourists. Those who already own a dog which is deemed to be ‘of type’ have to attend court in order to have their dog exempted by law, a lengthy process which often goes on for months, during which time their pet is held in secure kennels – an unfamiliar environment, often without daily exercise. Some of these dogs never return home.

Yet despite all of this, dog attacks are still on the rise in the UK. The Dangerous Dogs Act is a failed piece of legislation which has caused untold misery to so many dog owners and those who have the task of enforcing the law and dealing with its effects. Following the recent reports into the failings of breed specific legislation from both Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and the RSPCA, I caught up with Born Innocent, a campaign group working for a full reform of the Dangerous Dogs Act. The group’s work and anti-breed specific legislation message has recently been openly supported by TV dog trainer Victoria Stilwell. Here’s what they had to say…

Purple Patch – Born Innocent’s logo

Hi, Born Innocent! Can you tell us about your organisation and who is involved?

We are a non-profit campaigning group seeking to introduce a scientific-based, breed neutral strategic approach to dog legislation, with a focus on preventative measures. Born Innocent is formed of a committee of six professionals, all with wide experience in dog rescue, animal welfare, campaigning and political lobbying. Our Chair, Ms Frannie Santos-Mawdsley, is a senior international marketer, with a 20 year career in data and insight analysis. Our Advisory Committee is led by Shakira Miles, CEVA’s Veterinary Nurse of the Year 2016, and is counselled by veterinary professionals, trained behaviourists and scholars. Alongside Ms Miles we have Marie Yates, a writer and social entrepreneur who loves dogs. Marie is the co-founder and director of Canine Perspective CIC, a social enterprise using force-free dog training to make a positive change to the lives of humans and rescue dogs. We are also fortunate to have Professor John Cooper QC as our patron.

What was the inspiration behind your logo, ‘Purple Patch’?

We wanted our identity to feel professional while at the same time being welcoming and inclusive. The inspiration for Purple Patch has three elements:

Purple is a colour associated with responsibility: we promote responsible dog ownership.

‘Patch’: Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is a patchy piece of legislation that we can no longer ignore.

The figure of a dog reaching out for assistance with his paw. Hopefully this speaks for itself!

These three elements combined, in the design of the logo, are the embodiment of Purple Patch.

Which areas of the Dangerous Dogs Act will Born Innocent be focusing on?

Our vision is the introduction of breed neutral legislation in the UK, with a supportive framework that fosters education, responsible ownership and bite prevention backed by scientific research. Hence, our focus is on a reform of the full current legislation.

Many animal welfare charities and other organisations such as the Kennel Club have previously spoken out against breed specific legislation. Why do you think that we have not yet seen any proposals to remove BSL from the Dangerous Dogs Act, despite evidence that it does not have any effect on the reduction of dog bite cases?

Whilst many leading organisations such as the Kennel Club have spoken against BSL, this is not their single area of focus. There has long been a misconception amongst the public (including politicians) of what breed specific legislation is, what it does and what it does not do! Often, the language used by the media and government is surrounded in jargon and folklore. On top of that, many organisations have focused on separate pieces of legislation and evidence, while still dealing with the ‘now’ (e.g. supporting owners or stray dogs).

What we are doing at Born Innocent that is different is bringing scientific, legal, financial, human, animal and societal considerations together in order to look at the full picture of how legislation affects our society.

Lately there has been a lot of publicity surrounding the Dangerous Dogs Act, following the seizure of Hank in Northern Ireland. Do you think that this has raised awareness of breed specific legislation amongst the general public?

Hopefully it is starting to make a difference. However, while we are still seeing certain breeds demonised by the press, we need to ensure that education and changing the dialogue around dog bite prevention remains at the centre of public debate.

If someone has had their dog seized as a suspected Section 1 ‘type’, what support is available for them?

There are support groups that can be found on social media, especially Facebook. It would be unfair to name one over another, but excellent daily case support is available. We often get messages and emails, and we will direct individuals to the most appropriate support for them, since Born Innocent focuses on campaigning. Most importantly is that the owner’s basic rights as a UK citizen are understood. You do not have to agree that you are guilty (because owning a suspected breed banned under Section 1 is a crime), nor to sign your dog over to the police to be euthanised. We believe that having an independent, court verified assessor who has had no previous links with the police is essential for impartial advice on whether the dog fits ‘type’ or not. Finally, there are many excellent solicitors who specialise in canine and animal law. Our legal advisors are Parry, Welch & Lacy who successfully handle complicated cases and, like us, believe in questioning type first and foremost before approaching the exemption route.

Exempted dog Zara – who by law must now wear a muzzle at all times in a public place. Photo copyright ‘The adventures of Zara dog’ Facebook page

What would Born Innocent like to see as a replacement for the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in its current form?

We would like to see a breed neutral legislation that focuses on the owners’ responsibility rather than a dog’s guilt. The last 25 years have taught us that focusing on breeds does not diminish bites. Looking at successful communities around the world, the positive results are in those where education comes first, supported by animal neutering and health programmes, together with increasing fines which are livelihood proportionate. Moreover, the police and Government are currently not focusing enough resources on a serious matter which is often linked to breed specific legislation – dog fighting. We would like to see the label “dog bred for fighting” removed from legislation, because the guilt is then placed on the dog. The case of the dogs saved from Mike Vick’s fighting ring in the US clearly demonstrates that even dogs previously involved in fighting can be rehabilitated. Hence, we need a piece of legislation that focuses on education, prevention and punishing people who are guilty, such as irresponsible and cruel handlers.

How does Born Innocent intend to lobby for change?

We conduct both empirical and desk research in various areas affected by the law, such as animal welfare, human rights, bite prevention, legal execution and husbandry and better ownership education, amongst others. We use our data-based findings in lobbying Parliament and the House of Lords, together with its subsidiary groups and legal advisors.

What’s the best way for supporters to get involved with your campaigns?

Our current key campaign is to lobby the Law Society on the review that they are conducting of unfair and discriminatory laws, by 31/10/16. We want them to advise the Government to scrap the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, as it is, according to many lawyers and barristers, “one of the worst pieces of law in the UK”.

We also encourage everyone to write to their own MP and to DEFRA. We have tips on letter writing which can be viewed on our website.

The failures of the Dangerous Dogs Act were highlighted by British rap artist ‘Professor Green’ in his latest documentary produced for BBC Three, with assistance from organisations such as Battersea Dogs and Cats Home.

From the start of the programme, the rapper was keen to emphasise that records of dog bites are currently at an all time high, despite the presence of breed specific legislation introduced in the early nineties. Himself an owner of an Aylestone Old Tyme English Bulldog called Arthur, Green noted that Bully breed owners are often tarred with the same brush and are used to being judged by other members of the public. Despite Arthur’s impressive size, it’s clear that he poses no threat – and the affection between the two of them is also obvious.

Viewers were introduced to ‘Reece’, who is involved in the breeding and sale of illegal Pit Bull types despite receiving a ban from owning dogs. The notion that countless litters are being produced by individuals with an ownership ban is stomach-churning and makes the criminalisation of genuine family pet owners all the more frustrating. One such owner is Louisa, who has to attend court in order to save her dog Charlie from euthanasia. Charlie had never bitten anyone, yet was unlucky enough to match a significant number of characteristics in order to be deemed ‘type’. As Green points out, even a matter of millimetres can make the difference between life or death for innocent dogs. Fortunately for Charlie, the courts granted exemption. Yet Charlie is just one of 5000 dogs seized in the last three years across the country, costing taxpayers millions.

It is estimated that there are currently as many Pit Bull types in the UK as there were at the time of the introduction of the Dangerous Dogs Act. The programme claims that breed specific legislation has only increased the popularity of Pit Bull types amongst those who take pleasure in knowing that their dog is an illegal breed. In addition to this, by focusing on specific types as opposed to the welfare and treatment of dogs, the Dangerous Dogs Act does nothing to prevent attacks from legal breeds, such as those which fatally mauled Jade Anderson in 2013. The documentary features a short interview with Jade’s parents, who express anger at the fact that the owner of the dogs, which were underfed and rarely walked, did not receive a custodial sentence. The couple state that they do not believe that any particular breed of dog should be banned in the UK.

Towards the end of the programme, Green comes to the conclusion that the decision to ban the Pit Bull type was not only due to the high profile dog attack cases circulating throughout the media in 1991, but was also linked to the associations that the breed has with the “underclass”. Green believes that the ‘devil dog’ label and the widespread stereotype of criminal owners is an attempt to make the seizure of Pit Bull types appear justifiable, and does little to encourage any feelings of compassion towards either dog or owner. It is said that initial plans for Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act (breed specific legislation) included breeds such as the German Shepherd. In this sense, with the strong link between German Shepherds and the police, perhaps it is no wonder that it was the Pit Bull type that was banned instead.

“We thought that someone would come to their senses at some point” – Shaun Opperman, Director of Veterinary Services at Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, on the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

In addition to the documentary, a short video was also made available on YouTube, entitled ‘Dogs on Death Row’. In the clip, Green visits the main Battersea site, where last year 91 Pit Bull types were destroyed under the Dangerous Dogs Act (dogs deemed to be of illegal type can not be rehomed). A dog suspected to be of Pit Bull type is brought in to the centre during filming. The dog, named Caramel by the staff, is clearly a friendly and well mannered dog, despite being found on the streets. It is a tense moment when the measurements taken by the Dog Legislation Officer are announced – seeing this lovely dog being put to sleep would be heartbreaking – yet thankfully this time it is a happy outcome. Green also talks to Shaun Opperman, the head vet at Battersea, who has no choice other than to put down healthy dogs if they match a significant number of Pit Bull type characteristics. Opperman expresses his disdain for the Dangerous Dogs Act and says that it is “nonsensical” to euthanise dogs of sound temperament, adding that when the law originally came into effect he did not believe that it would still be here, 25 years on.

‘Caramel’ arrives at Battersea. Screenshot copyright BBC

The reintroduction of dog licences is one suggestion put forward in the documentary as an alternative to breed specific legislation, with stricter penalties for those who own larger breeds. However, Green believes that no politician will “put their neck on the line” to challenge the Pit Bull ban, since they would potentially face a huge backlash should an attack happen following their decriminalisation. Yet it has already been established that there has not been a reduction in Pit Bull numbers since 1991. The ‘wrong’ type of owner who would potentially create a ‘dangerous dog’ is not waiting for the Pit Bull type to be made legal – they already have one. Surely those in favour of focusing on four particular breeds of dog, three of which hardly ever seen in the UK, should be the ones to face any sort of backlash when a child is attacked by a ‘legal’ breed.

Breed specific legislation is not preventing dog bites. Everyone can see this, from the British Veterinary Association and the Kennel Club to victims of dog attacks and now even Professor Green.

At first glance, there appears to be nothing out of the ordinary about this keyring. Sold on eBay as a ‘Staffordshire Bull Terrier/Pit Bull keyring’, it stands at just one and a half inches tall. Cute? Yes. But on closer inspection, this tiny ‘Staffie Pit’ has narrowed eyes, a heavily muscled chest and cropped ears, a practice which sadly many real dogs have to suffer as their owners attempt to transform their floppy-eared pit bull into an intimidating fighting machine. Ear cropping is illegal in the UK, but this keyring was not made for the UK market. It’s not made for adult bully breed enthusiasts either. This is a ‘Hood Hound’, part of a children’s brand available in toy vending machines throughout the USA.

Further research on the line of keyrings and small collectables, created by plastic model company Hoppin’ Hydros, leads to some worrying discoveries. The little plastic dog currently sat on my desk is actually named Sly, described on the Hood Hounds website as a “grey and white Pit” – so much for the Staffie keyring. The description continues, “This grey and white Pit may look tame, but true aficionados know, one false move and a limb may be lost!”. Sly is accompanied by various other canine characters, some in aggressive poses, including “one mean muscle mass” Bullet, whose own keyring form is pictured below. Suga, an equally brawny Rottweiler, has a “sweet name and a mean bite”. As shocking as all this may seem, according to manufacturer A&A Global Industries, Sly and the rest of the pack have been a favourite item amongst American children since their introduction in 2002, with over 25 million units sold of the two preliminary Hood Hound series alone.

And so while countless organisations the world over attempt to educate the public about responsible dog ownership, the all-important next generation of dog owners are collecting and trading items with connotations so frightening it’s a wonder that they are so freely available, especially considering the sensationalist fear surrounding dog attacks on children. Is it possible that a product could have an impact on how children view dogs, and indeed how they look after their own dogs in the future? Of course, even if it doesn’t, you still have to question the morals of a company producing such toys. A limb-tearing Pit Bull is hardly the perfect companion for Barbie. Butresearch conducted by the retailer Argos in the run up to Christmas last year showed that there is in fact a link between toy preferences and a child’s future; over 60% of adults within design-based careers played with building blocks as children, and 66% of accountants and bankers preferred working on puzzles when they were growing up. The majority of children interested in novelty toys from vending machines are likely to be of an age when they are easily influenced by what they are exposed to, and by purchasing these characters with their pocket money, young Hood Hound fans may be demonstrating an early attraction towards such imagery. As they become older, the same children may discover rap music videos with similar tough-looking dog images, and sadly some of them may one day own a real life status dog. The very existence of ‘Hood Hounds’ makes the ownership of aggressive dogs for personal gain seem normal – something that surely no parent or dog lover would approve of.

Hood Hounds are far from the only toys that reinforce stereotypes and go the completely wrong way about marketing animal ownership to children. Walk into any store selling cheap toys and you are likely to come across fluffy white poodles stuffed into sparkly pink handbags, much to the delight of girls who may have already had a glimpse of celebrities with their wriggling, fur-shedding equivalent of the look. Dogs aren’t the only victims of careless toy designers, with a Playmobil rabbit hutch set currently available at Toys R Usthat is enough to give any animal welfare campaigner a nervous breakdown and plenty of cuddly mini pigs available complete with harnesses and leads, sending out the message that treating a livestock animal as an accessory is harmless fun. Sadly this isn’t the case, as demonstrated by a cull of ‘micro pigs’ in Wales earlier this month which were thought to have escaped from captivity, creating a disease risk to other animals in the area. However, when designed and marketed in the right way, animal-related toys can be excellent. The popular Nintendo DS game ‘Nintendogs‘ teaches children that dog ownership comes with responsibility – buying food, daily grooming and providing basic training and sufficient exercise is all covered, even down to poop scooping – albeit innocuous virtual poop closely resembling a bread roll. Dogs Trust teamed up with Nintendogs in 2011 to form the ‘A Dog is Not A Toy’ campaign in response to the trend of using dogs as living fashion accessories and to “educate the dog owners of tomorrow” – a far cry from the ‘Petz’ computer games of the late 90s where the breeding, dressing up and even painting of dogs was encouraged (although at the time it did seem pretty fun).

Could this… … Lead to this?

As a child myself I owned hundreds of cuddly animal toys, but I can’t recall any of them being ‘vicious’. One of my first toy dogs was Cassie, a Spaniel who was attached to a plastic lead, not a handbag. I also had a ‘FurReal’ bear cub – did that make me want to own a real life Grizzly? Probably for a while. But the point is, unlike bears, dogs are everywhere, and children should be learning to treat them with respect, for their own sake as much as the dogs’. Both toy manufacturers and parents have a duty to make this possible.

And what about Sly, the one and a half inches tall, limb-tearing pit bull? I think I’ll take my chances.

Do you think Hood Hounds encourage irresponsible dog ownership? Or are they just harmless toys? Comment below!

Thanks to the media we are all aware of the murky world of gangs and weapon dogs, but few of us have had first-hand experience of life within London’s toughest and most violent areas. Here ex-gang leader turned poet and author Justin Rollins talks to Not So Dangerous Dogs about pit bulls, dog fighting and gangster rap…

What made you want to write a book on the issues surrounding status dogs?

Justin: The main reason for my writing of the status dogs part of the book [Status Dogs & Gangs] is because I was sick of reading the negative headlines about ‘pit bull type’ dogs. There is so much more that goes on behind the scenes of the status dogs issue; people are so quick to judge the ‘Bully breeds’ and as a dog lover I wanted to try to rebuild a positive image of them – especially the Pit Bull Terrier which many people don’t realise is the most poorly treated dog in the world as the result of ‘man’ using this strong breed for his own evil agenda.

In the book you mention the influence of rap music videos featuring pit bull type dogs. How much power do you think this has over the breed choice of ‘impressionable youth’?

Justin: As a mixed race youth growing up in London with no father figure, I looked to ‘gangster rappers’ as some sort of role model – not a great choice but I was too young to realise that at the time. Music videos from artists in the USA filled with anti-police messages, fast women, graffiti, gangs and of course ‘pit bull dogs’ were so appealing. The rappers looked threatening and having large muscular dogs at their side made them appear even more menacing – as an ex gang leader I know only too well the need to look tough, and having such a dog enhances that image.

I believe this mentality spread across the pond to the UK. You only have to watch the video for ‘Real Compton City Gs’ [a 1993 song by Californian rapper Easy E] with gangs on their block, tattoos on their necks and angry men pointing trigger fingers towards the camera, and compare it to any recent London-based gangster rap video and you will see how the image has spread. I believe that this is the reason the youths of today are walking about with pit bull type dogs.

Pit bull types and legal ‘bully breeds’ are often described as ‘devil dogs’ in dog attack articles. Do you think that the media is partly responsible for their notoriety and subsequent popularity amongst gangs?

Justin: The media always like to ‘hype up’ headlines to sell papers and create fear, although I am all too aware of dog attack stories and I’m still wary if I see a young kid with a large dog when I’m out walking with my own child. If people never watched the news or read the paper they would not have this inbuilt fear of these breeds or dogs in general. Just look at the photo that will be printed of the so-called ‘devil dog’: it will usually be a snarling beast. Where are the photos of the same breed in their family homes playing or sleeping with children? Yes, the media has played a major role in spreading the mistrust of these dogs, as well as impressing young, angry youths with the images they publish.

Illegal dog fighting features in your book and has hit the headlines recently following the airing of Channel 4’s ‘Going to the Dogs’ documentary. Why do you think the ‘sport’ still continues over a century after it was outlawed?

Justin: I think dog fighting is a disgusting thing. It angers me even thinking about it now and that is the reason I didn’t watch ‘Going to the Dogs’. I have had quite an insight into the world of dog fighting as a result of my interview with ‘Irish Frank’, published in my book. I believe it is still around purely due to nasty and evil people. You get angry men wanting to express their hatred towards each other through dog fighting, or to enhance their own ‘status’ amongst their friends and it sickens me. The most frustrating part is because the pit bull type is illegal in this country, once it is finally rescued by the authorities, sometimes after years of cruelty and abuse, 99% of the time it will be put to sleep. If another breed is rescued from the fighting scene it may get the chance of a fresh start.

Another reason this so-called sport still lingers around our streets is due to Asian gangs becoming heavily involved. In Pakistan it isn’t unusual for whole villages to come together to watch their version of a pit bull fight. The winners receive money, mobile phones and even televisions if their dog wins. The dog fighter will then lift his blood-soaked winning dog upon his shoulders and dance around as people play flutes. From this it isn’t hard to see why so many young Asian men living in the UK feel free to carry on with their ‘dog fighting’.

You also mention in Status Dogs & Gangs that you believe the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 should be rewritten, including the abolishment of breed specific legislation (BSL). What effect do you think this would have on irresponsible pit bull ownership – would their tough reputation suffer if they became popular family pets?

Justin: I would love to say that the pit bull’s bad image would fade away if the breed was legalised but in my lifetime it just won’t happen. Even in Hollywood films and cartoons the bull breed always plays the dopey, less intelligent dog or the ‘tough’ dog. Close-minded people will always judge and look down their noses at something, whether it’s a hooded kid lost on the streets that clearly just needs love and guidance or a large bully breed dog. Kids growing up in some parts of inner cities or estates feel isolated and often alienated from society – the reason they choose a breed whose own reputation mirrors how they feel.

Our current Dangerous Dogs Act does not appear to be effectively dealing with the status/weapon dog issue. What would you like to see in its place? Should legislators examine the wider context beyond the dogs themselves?

Justin: It’s not the dog, it’s the owner. What is going on in the owner’s life? The bigger picture is a social issue. Throughout history many young men in this country have wanted to fight back ‘against the system’ – we’ve had punks and the like fighting all over the UK’s streets, football hooligans venting their built up anger against each other and now you have another ‘urban menace’ – hoodies with weapon dogs. Legislators should look beyond the dog and at society in general. If you want to stop the young hoodie walking these dogs, introduce a minimum age of ownership: that would immediately stamp out teenagers parading their large dogs as some sort of status symbol.

Justin’s latest book, Status Dogs & Gangs, is out now and can be purchased from Amazon.

For more information on Justin’s work, visit his website or follow him on twitter @JustinRollins7z

Jade, one of the 22 Pit Bull types euthanised in Merseyside (picture from Liverpool Echo)

“They picked Akanni up one morning

Beat him soft like clay

And stuffed him down the belly

Of a waiting jeep…

…They came one night

Booted the whole house awake

And dragged Danladi out,

Then off to a lengthy absence…”

The above extracts are taken from ‘Not my Business’, a poem written about the abuse suffered by African people at the hands of the army or secret police. Although the violence and injustice conveyed by author Niyi Osundare seems a world away from our equality-rich society, nobody could possibly deny the similarities between the narrative and the recent reports of the 22 innocent Pit Bulls dragged from their homes by Merseyside Police – killed for no reason other than a lack of pet insurance and paperwork errors.

Exempted dogs (those that are confirmed to be of illegal type but deemed safe to return to their owners) by law have to be neutered, microchipped, tattooed, kept on a lead and muzzled in public and insured with third party pet insurance. If owners fail to meet any of these conditions, their dogs will be seized. Chloe, a six year old Pit Bull type on the Index of Exempted dogs, was taken from her 66 year old owner during a morning raid in a style usually reserved for dealing with dangerous criminals rather than family pets, with the metaphorical ‘waiting jeep’ taking the form of seven police vans. Although it is not yet clear whether her owner did indeed have Chloe insured via DogsTrust membership as she had claimed, it seems that Merseyside Police acted without compassion, making little distinction between the family and those involved in illegal activity. In any other case, an innocent middle aged lady would never be grouped with criminals, yet her dog’s physical appearance led to exactly that. All exempted dogs have to be proved to be of ‘sound temperament’ before being released to their owners, meaning that neither Chloe nor the other 21 Pit Bull types were dangerous dogs.

Despite exempted Pit Bulls presenting no more of a threat to members of the public than any legal breed, failure to comply with the exemption conditions is likely to mean death for the dog. Controversy surrounding the destruction of friendly and exempted Pit Bulls is nothing new; during the early years of the Dangerous Dogs Act the case of Dempsey, another family pet, made headlines when her muzzle was taken off in public in order to stop her from choking on her own vomit. Despite the removal of the muzzle being a temporary measure as an attempt to save her life, Dempsey was ordered to be destroyed. It took three years to save Dempsey, during which time she, like so many other ‘Section 1’ dogs currently affected by the Dangerous Dogs Act, was kept in secure police kennels. It was a legal loophole that eventually saved Dempsey; her muzzle had been removed by a family friend who failed to inform her owner of the court hearing, and as a result of her owner’s lack of awareness, Dempsey was spared – proving that sometimes ignorance really is bliss. (Further information on Dempsey can be found here).

Dempsey. (Picture courtesy of Our Dogs newspaper)

But unlike Dempsey, the Pit Bulls seized in Liverpool, dubbed the ‘Merseyside 22’ by campaigners, were not given the chance to be saved. This is not the first time that Merseyside Police have taken direct and arguably unjustifiable action towards the destruction of Pit Bulls. In 2007 the force came under scrutiny from the dog world, including organisations such as the Kennel Club, when it initiated a week-long ‘amnesty’ – allowing owners to hand over illegal breeds without themselves being prosecuted. The Kennel Club pointed out that criminals with potentially dangerous dogs were unlikely to partake in the amnesty, while responsible owners would be more likely to comply with the law in order to avoid imprisonment, and their well-behaved dogs would be put to sleep as a result.

The poster used by Merseyside Police in 2007 to accompany the amnesty

The amnesty ended with the seizure of 86 illegal ‘types’. The then Assistant Chief Constable of Merseyside, Helen King, was quoted in a BBC report,

“We understand that it has been a very difficult decision for many people to part with their animals. We are grateful to all of you for putting the safety of your children and the people of Merseyside ahead of the affection for your dog.”

Just as the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 itself was a knee-jerk reaction to the dog attacks heavily reported in the media, it seems that the amnesty was Merseyside Police’s response to the widespread media attention surrounding the tragic death of Ellie Lawrenson, a five year old girl killed by her uncle’s dog – a Pit Bull type with a history of aggressive behaviour towards both other dogs and people. The dog clearly was a danger yet was not dealt with until the aftermath of the fatality; the owner’s negligence was to blame for his niece’s death. The subsequent seizure of 86 Pit Bull types, including those which had not shown any signs of aggression, did not alter the outcome – just as breed specific legislation does not prevent future dog attacks.

In an article regarding Jade, another of the 22 Pit Bulls destroyed towards the end of last month, Chief Inspector Chris Gibson said,

“These dogs pose a danger to the public, as well as to the families where they are housed. I’m sure there aren’t many who would be happy to let their children or grandchildren play out in the street, if one of these dogs was in the vicinity. These dogs are not designed to be family pets.”

Do all Pit Bull types really present a danger to children? If we are to believe what we read in the newspapers, then yes. But real statistics prove otherwise. According to DEFRA there are over 2,000 exempted Pit Bulls living in the UK as of 2013, and, since the Dangerous Dogs Act is infamous for failing to eradicate Pit Bulls, as was the intention of its creator Kenneth Baker, it is likely that there are thousands more living ‘illegally’ (“There are more Pit Bulls in this country than Labradors”, an illegal breeder told The Sun in February this year). Despite all these ‘devil dogs’ living amongst us, there have been less than twenty deaths as the result of dog attacks (from any breed) since 2005. To put this in perspective, it is estimated that around ten people are killed per year in the UK as the result of horse riding accidents. And according to statistics published in the book ‘Dogs Bite But Balloons and Slippers are More Dangerous’ by Janis Bradley, children are more likely to be killed by toys and playground equipment than as the result of a dog attack. Pit Bulls are not ‘devil dogs’ at all, and were historically bred for low aggression towards humans since those involved in dog fighting never wanted to be bitten themselves when dealing with their dogs. Socialised and well-cared for Pit Bulls are no more likely to terrorise the neighbourhood than a Golden Retriever (indeed, Pit Bulls have ‘beaten’ popular dog breeds such as Retrievers and Beagles in temperament tests – obviously these are “not designed to be family pets” either).

Fatal dog attacks are extremely rare, especially in proportion to the millions of dogs living in the UK, yet when attacks do happen both the media and law enforcers want something to blame, and as a consequence of breed specific legislation Pit Bulls are the scapegoat. Prior to 1991, the Rottweiler, German Shepherd and the Doberman all received similar negativity and any of these breeds could easily have replaced the Pit Bull in the Dangerous Dogs Act. The full version of ‘Not my Business’ consists of the message that injustice should never be ignored since one day there may be a knock at your own door. If we continue to turn a blind eye to the routine euthanasia of Pit Bulls how long will it be before more breeds are put in danger by legislators? Targeting innocent owners, and innocent dogs, instead of unscrupulous breeders and irresponsible owners who produce the real dangerous dogs is a fault with legislation, the blame for which does not lie with one police force. But as long as the euthanasia of family pets on the basis of appearance and prejudice alone continues, the recent action taken by Merseyside Police is definitely the business of all dog owners, no matter what breed we have at home.

DDA Watch campaign for the removal of breed specific legislation and assist families whose dogs are seized under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

Two dog related programmes were shown on both BBC (‘Louis Theroux’s LA Stories: City of Dogs’) and ITV (in the two episodes of ‘Dangerous Dogs’) in the past couple of weeks, with the latter in particular attracting a lot of attention amongst dog loving viewers, perhaps not for the reasons that ITV had originally been hoping for. Neglect and irresponsible ownership featured heavily in both programmes.

The first episode of Dangerous Dogs surrounded the working lives of Birmingham City Council’s dog wardens and the situations that they face on a daily basis. Two wardens in particular caused controversy with their handling of an abandoned Akita who refused to come quietly, leading many viewers to brand the programme ‘Dangerous Dog Wardens’. With cameras following their every move, the women were shown shouting at the frightened animal before struggling to drag it out of the property with the use of two catch poles, leaving the dog visibly distressed and physically exhausted. When dealing with potentially dangerous dogs it is always important to put human safety first, and the use of such equipment is certainly justified, however, seemingly due to the nerves of the wardens, the event took longer than perhaps it should have done, with one of the wardens initially panicking at the sight of a spider in the doorway. The constant opening and closing of the door, together with the shouting (and sometimes screaming) from the dog warden, surely must have heightened the dog’s fear, making his capture even more difficult. Perhaps this quote on how to approach dogs, taken from this RSPCA International publication on dog control guidance, should have been noted;

“Remember that any action from the catcher(s) will provoke the dog(s)… A catcher should adopt a non-aggressive body posture by presenting a low-profile on approach. Their movements should remain calm and slow.”

The Akita outside the abandoned property.

Louis Theroux’s programme, City of Dogs, also demonstrated the effects of animal abandonment with one animal control officer reluctantly collecting a Pit Bull Terrier to be euthanised. According to those interviewed, many dogs in Los Angeles are simply thrown out when they are no longer of any use for breeding or other money making activities. Without anyone coming forward to claim the Pit Bull, and hundreds more stray dogs requiring kennel space, there was simply nowhere for the dog to go. Unlike the Akita back in Birmingham, the Pit Bull did not show any signs of aggression as a result of its treatment, showing that an abandoned dog doesn’t always mean ‘dangerous dog’ (indeed, once the Akita was nursed back to health at Birmingham Dogs Home, it passed all temperament tests and was rehomed). What was obvious from both programmes was that irresponsible ownership is a leading factor of aggression issues within our dog populations.

In Dangerous Dogs, an owner with apparent alcohol issues had lost count of how many Staffie cross puppies he had in his flat, and, despite the advice from the warden, sold many of the puppies as early as four weeks old to “anyone who wanted them”. It is clear that anyone who would even consider buying a tiny puppy from a man down the pub would not be the sort of person to raise a well-balanced family pet, and the future is bleak for the puppies who are likely to become victims both to their poor early upbringing and their unscrupulous owners. In Episode two, a family living in squalor had numerous Staffies which were never given access to the garden nor walked, together with a litter of young puppies covered in their own excrement, cats and kittens locked in a filthy bathroom and various small animals in tiny cages, a murky substance in their water bottle their only source of liquid. It made for very upsetting viewing, and the frustration on the dog wardens’ faces was obvious. The dogs could not be seized under the Animal Welfare Act as they were physically healthy and were not deprived of food and water. Just as with the litter of puppies who were sold at four weeks, the wardens were powerless. The ‘owners’ agreed to hand over the rest of the animals, but the dogs stayed. These dogs may indeed become the next attack headlines, a result of the simple fact that they are unexercised, untrained and unsocialised. But because they are fed and watered, they can not be seized or rehomed to a suitable environment, and the owners are able to continue producing endless litters of dogs.

It seemed very wrong that the family, who could barely take care of themselves, were allowed to keep the dogs, particularly after witnessing the terrible conditions in which their other animals had been living (and the fact that one member of the family had previously received a five year ban from keeping animals). This was only made worse when the cameras showed Gunner, a friendly, well-cared for Pit Bull, being taken away to secure police kennels. Gunner, like many other family pets declared to be ‘type’, had presumably never shown any signs of aggression, and he was allowed to return to his owners as an exempted dog. Another Pit Bull type featured in the programme had been found straying, and was clearly not a danger to those handling it since it was not muzzled and there were no catch poles in sight. Yet because it matched the identification measurements, the dog was humanely euthanised – under the Dangerous Dogs Act it is illegal to rehome Pit Bull types.

The Pit Bull shown being euthanised on ITV’s Dangerous Dogs is one of thousands killed each year as a result of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

While mistreated or ill-socialised dogs have the capability to become dangerous, many dogs in both America and here in the UK are actively trained to show aggression. In City of Dogs, a group of men demonstrated their protection training with a Dutch Herder. The dog had been trained to bite a padded sleeve in a display similar to police dog work but without the control that is achieved through the intense police training course.When the trainer gave the release command, the dog held on. If this apparent lack of control in a semi-professional environment seems worrying, consider the fact that ‘weapon dogs’ are now relatively common in the UK, with many dogs receiving ‘training’ involving physical violence in an attempt to cause aggressive responses. This results in a certain unpredictability, making so-called status dogs a danger to the public. Breed specific legislation has little impact on this trend as Pit Bull types are often used alongside legal breeds to convey status and intimidate others.In the first episode of Dangerous Dogs, a male with a severe attitude problem threatened the dog warden with violence as she was in the process of attempting to issue a fixed penalty notice after witnessing his partner let their Staffordshire Bull Terrier foul. The man, who heard the commotion outside his flat, came downstairs and threatened to “punch the face off” the warden before shouting a stream of profanities at the cameraman. Not, then, the actions of a responsible Staffie owner – the dog was clearly just another status symbol.

The protection dog in LA(copyright BBC)

“If I rode around every day with a gun, I take the chance of going to jail if the police stop me. I can ride around with my dog all day long. He’s just like my pistol at my side.” – LA protection dog trainer

In both programmes we have seen dogs starved, thrown out on to the streets, deprived of exercise, forced to produce numerous litters and actively trained to bite or intimidate. The chance of any legal breed owned as a ‘weapon’ biting a member of the public is far greater than that of a Pit Bull type owned responsibly causing harm, yet dogs declared to be Pit Bull type are routinely destroyed even if they present no threat to public safety while dogs that are likely to cause problems in the future are not dealt with until after they attack. With no incentive to take care of their animals, and money to be made from the breeding of status dogs, at present there is no reason for irresponsible owners to change their attitude. Since punishments rarely equal their crimes, it is usually the dog that pays the highest price. Future laws need to concentrate on ownership, not breeds. The Dangerous Dogs narrator closed the programme by saying that as a nation we are falling far short of being able to call ourselves dog lovers. Until our laws are improved, this sadly remains all too true.

The two episodes of ‘Dangerous Dogs’ are currently available on ITV Player.

‘LA: City of Dogs’ is also available online and can be viewed via BBC iplayer until April 13.

Cardiff Dogs Home found themselves at the centre of controversy last week following the news that three healthy puppies in their care had been put to sleep. It is understood that the puppies, named Samson, Daisy and Coco, were identified by a Dog Legislation Officer (DLO) as being ‘Pit Bull type’, and, since they had been found straying, had no owner to make an appeal and were immediately seized.

It is thought that the puppies were only 12 weeks old, making them too young to be ‘typed’ since the guidelines used in the identification of Pit Bull types are entirely based upon physical characteristics of an adult dog. With descriptions such as “height to weight ratio should be in proportion” and “the head should be around 2/3 width of shoulders” (Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales & Northern Ireland, 2009), it seems impossible that the DLO involved at Cardiff Dogs Home was able to make an accurate assessment;

“Dogs that are classed as dangerous due to type only and are too young to be accurately assessed must be subject to a DLO examination to determine whether they should remain with the owner until such a time that they can be accurately assessed (usually 9 months of age).” (Kent Police, 2013).

An informal statement was issued on December 13 and can be seen on the Cardiff Council website;

“We are aware of the negative publicity regarding the 3 pups that have been put to sleep at Cardiff’s Dogs Home. They have been positively classed as pit bull type by a qualified Dog Liaison Officer. This breed is unable to be re-homed by the Local Authority under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1990. The Dog’s Home has to adhere by the law and we are sending a very strong message out to indiscriminate breeders to stop what they are doing, the law is in place for a very good reason and it is with deep regret that we have to carry out such acts.”

Do indiscriminate breeders really care about the ‘message’ conveyed by putting puppies to sleep? Those breeding illegal dogs for financial or personal gain have little interest in the welfare of the puppies produced, especially since many are destined for the cruel world of dog fighting. It is unrealistic, and rather naive, to suggest that ending the lives of three healthy puppies will stop anyone involved in illegal activity to “stop what they are doing”. Since the euthanasia of the dogs did not make headlines, their deaths went unnoticed by the majority of the public, including those who produced them. The only people affected by this outcome are the staff and volunteers at Cardiff Dogs Home who had no choice but to hand over the puppies, who they had looked after since their arrival, knowing that their fate had been sealed. It is a shame that the spokesperson decided to add that “the law is in place for a very good reason”, despite not being able to correctly refer to the law as the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

It has already been established that the dogs were too young to be assessed. It is likely that many young puppies are rehomed each year as ‘Staffordshire Bull Terriers’ yet grow into a dog with a number of characteristics matching those of a Pit Bull type; it is simply impossible to tell exactly how a dog will look when fully grown if their genetic background is unknown. It is equally impossible to determine how many characteristics a 12 week old puppy has that match the description of an adult Pit Bull type.

The deaths of three puppies, who may have made excellent family pets, is a very sad occurrence and one which will continue until breed specific legislation is removed. Until then, rescue centres throughout the country will continue to dread the arrival of the Dog Legislation Officer.